Abortion pro-choice is just an empty slogan

Jennifer Brown/ The Star-LedgerAn abortion clinic in Elizabeth, from a 2010 photo

When it concerns abortion, “pro-choice” is just an empty slogan.

This was shown again last week, shortly after a federal court upheld a Texas law that requires relevant information be provided to women considering abortion. Specifically, the law requires abortion-minded women to receive sonograms, and physicians to give them a detailed description of the developing fetus.

Such a law is more than reasonable. After all, having all the relevant facts can only help when facing a tough choice, especially a decision as serious as whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

So, it would seem that Planned Parenthood and other “pro-choice” organizations would praise the court ruling that upholds the new law.

Alas, Planned Parenthood did nothing of the kind. Responding to the court’s ruling, a spokeswoman for the organization described the state law as “abhorrent” legislation that would “demean women.” The federal court’s decision to uphold the law was a “terrible day for Texas women and their families,” said Cecile Richards, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Meanwhile, those on the pro-life side of the abortion debate applauded that women in the Lone Star state will now be better informed as they consider how to respond to an unplanned pregnancy. “This is a great day for America,” state Sen. Dan Patrick, who sponsored the legislation, told the Wall Street Journal. “This law,” he added, “is about a women's right to know so she can have all the information she deserves before making a decision to end a life.”

As upheld by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas law is straightforward enough. Women seeking an abortion are required to get sonograms, live pictures showing the fetus moving in real time. Physicians must explain whether the fetus has developed limbs and internal organs. The victims of rape are exempt from the physician’s component.

The legislation passed earlier this year and Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed the measure. A lower court overturned the law in August, saying it violated physicians’ free-speech rights by compelling them to give information that the jurists deemed an “ideological agenda with which they may not agree.” The federal court then reinstated the law.

What are we to make of this?

First, Planned Parenthood’s response shows just how empty the “pro-choice” rhetoric really is. In our everyday experience, more information makes for greater freedom of choice. Should I attend Rutgers or Montclair State? As I consider my options, I want as much information as possible about academic offerings, costs, social life, etc.

Deciding what to do when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, unlike choosing which school to attend, is fraught with moral consequences as I consider each option. But that moral dimension should make it more important to be fully informed about each possible choice, not less important.

So why would Planned Parenthood so oppose to women receiving more information so as to enable them to make a more informed choice?

When facing an unwanted pregnancy, there are three options: 1) going through with the pregnancy and keeping the child 2) going through with the pregnancy and placing the child for adoption or 3) terminating the pregnancy. But Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are not neutral parties as women choose among those options. At several hundred dollars apiece, abortion is a hugely profitable venture. It doesn’t take much guesswork to figure out which option a clinic in business to make money might favor.

It is understandable that a woman who is facing an unwanted pregnancy because of traumatic circumstances might want to be “rid” of the problem with the least emotional trauma possible. Perhaps she has been abandoned by a boyfriend who promised love to get sex – and then made himself scarce when she became pregnant. Perhaps a college student who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant sees having a child at this time an obstacle to her dreams of a career.

Still, a woman must weigh her discomfort at a soon-coming child against the discomfort of terminating what she may suspect is in fact a pre-born human being. Some women may not want the additional information presented in a sonogram, with its all-too-vivid picture of the developing fetus, or a physician’s candid description of exactly what (or who) is in danger of being terminated. So some of the abortion provider’s supposed appeal may be rooted in making her dilemma easier to resolve by lessening the humanity of the fetus.

But as both pro-choice and pro-life advocates realize, many abortion-minded women change their minds after they see the living fetus in a sonogram. It’s just that pro-life advocates would like women to have that information before they make their choice.

In time, many women come to regret the easy “bargain” of a “painless” abortion. Some experience a sense of loss. Some find out later just how human the fetus is, and then develop a sense of betrayal at not having been fully informed before making their choice.

Those who claim to be “pro-women” and “pro-choice” ought to welcome the more complete information mandated by the Texas law. That abortion providers don’t welcome laws that mandate greater information shows just how empty their “pro-choice” sloganeering really is.